Tuesday, April 17, 2012

I hope you don't mind me addressing you
by your initials because that has simply become a habit of mine over
the years as I've spammed links to your articles and videos all over
the internet. Indeed, you have often given voice to certain issues
in a way that is very much appreciated. For that, I must thank you.

However... I am inclined to write this
letter, and make it public, because I don't feel you adequately
address criticism from those of us who share many of your concerns
and much of your perspective. I can understand this lack of a
response in psychological terms because no one likes to be
criticized. Nevertheless, I feel that honestly acknowledging such
criticism could be beneficial to expanding the discussion about the
issues and ideas you champion. As I don't have much faith in getting
a response from you on any public forums, and because my time during
any Q & A period would undoubtedly be limited, I've chosen to
present my criticism and questions thusly.

Cutting to the chase, I must ask you
about the statements you gave to Chris Hedges in regard to militancy
within the #OccupyWallStreet movement and about the general level of
militancy which should be engaged in by activists located within the
borders of the United States. Do you stand by the statements he
attributed to you in his article entitled "The Cancer of Occupy"
and are those statements reflective of your current position? Specifically, I want to know if you stand by the following statement:

“If
you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for
acts of nonviolent resistance, if you see that the land is still
being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have
a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying
to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we
get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is
a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a
movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at
a cop because it is fun.”

If
you have repudiated these statements, I hope you will go to greater
lengths to make that repudiation more widely known. I try to pay
attention but have not noticed a public repudiation coming from you
-- I am, therefore, unfortunately left with the belief that you do
actually stand by those statements as quoted by Hedges. I've written
a fairly well-received critique of Hedges' article (you can find it
by searching for "The
Folly of Christopher Hedges"), but here I'd like take issue
with your personal role in his dubious piece of intellectually
dishonest editorializing.

For
starters, Ken
Saro-Wiwa was essentially killed for his resistance to degradation
brought about by a western oil company with petrol stations
distributing their products in the United States. This, in itself,
makes the struggle of Ken Saro-Wiwa a struggle for those of us living
here. To pretend otherwise is a prime example of the NIMBY attitude.
Because western corporations are merely killing environmental
activists overseas... that's not our problem and western activists
should not escalate their level of activism where those corporations
are based? I find that line of thought questionable. And I also
don't believe it would be vanguardist to act in solidarity with the
Ogoni people in this particular struggle.

But
your statement also makes it seem as if environmentalists in the west
aren't brutalized and harshly mistreated. I hope you are at least
aware of what happened to Judi
Bari & Darryl Cherney? Theirs is a cautionary tale which all
environmental activists should know well. But that's merely the tip
of the iceberg and many environmentalists face violent attacks at the
hands of the U.S. government. And those that aren't killed often
face excessive legal hassles -- including tortuous incarceration. And,
like the Ogoni, we in the U.S. do, in fact, "see
that the land is still being trashed."
When, pray tell, would enough be enough? And why should it be
acceptable if such violence and degradation were only happening in
Nigeria or somewhere other than in our own personal backyards? It
must be reiterated... the exploitation of the environment and the
abuse of activists elsewhere often occurs at the behest of western
corporations which are facilitating the western lifestyles we see all
around us.

You
suggest that we "have
to go through the process of trying to work with the system and
getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We
can’t short-circuit the process." Is
that really your position now? We haven't worked within the system
enough and haven't been screwed enough? Well... I do hope you'll
start passing out voter guides and petitions at your talks then. I
mean... we must try to exhaust the possibilities of futility,
shouldn't we? But seriously... you don't think those trying to work
within the system have gotten screwed enough yet? Really?! So...
when precisely should our breaking point be? When
would enough be enough? When
do we get to move beyond reformism? Do you really think we
shouldn't try to "short-circuit the process"?

And, as per your
quote, do you really think more militant action for social justice
and the environment is premature and that those engaging in such
actions are immature? Not only does that sound incredibly
condescending, but it is a betrayal of all those who have taken more
militant actions in the name of social justice or environmental
activism. And by militant I don't necessarily mean violent.

You
suggest that "We
can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop
because it is fun.’”
But I pay attention to the radical press, I even go to see radical
speakers, and I know of no one who is seriously advocating any such
thing. This isn't to say that no one is using aggressive and
militant language, but no one is really suggesting such things simply
"because it's fun." And, particularly in regard to the
#occupy movement, the most aggressive action on the part of the
protesters has pretty much been some water bottles thrown at heavily
armed police. Sure, Starbucks and some banks got their windows
smashed in Oakland, but that's hardly thoughtless and it wasn't a
targeting of mom & pop shops. As I pointed out in my critique of
Hedges' awful piece... there are many black
bloc communiques that have been distributed (with the most
well-known probably being the N30
Black Bloc Communique [from the Seattle WTO meeting in '99])
which make it perfectly clear that corrupt and destructive
corporations are the primary targets of such essentially symbolic
(and actually non-violent) actions. These are usually very
calculated actions and those engaging in them are often informed and
dedicated individuals. I'd also like to point out that much of the
general public undoubtedly understands why a big bank, or some other
corrupt corporation, might get its windows smashed -- and such action
doesn't necessarily sadden or anger them.

My primary concern
in this letter is whether or not you will stand by your statements as
quoted by Christopher Hedges in his recent article. Those statements
seem to be in stark contrast with the ideas which you've put forward
in the past and upon which you've built your reputation.

Finally, while I
don't want to get into a tone argument, I must question your act of
inviting even more scrutiny into your affairs by summoning the FBI to
investigate the death threats made against you over the internet.
Their agents may very well have been the ones placing those threats
against you. Again, just ask Judi Bari. And, despite your
assertions, such a situation isn't at all the same as a rape victim
going to the police. Millions who play online video games have
received such threats and big talk on the internet is not equivalent
to rape. I understand any fear you may have, and truly feel sorry
for you, but I also feel you've gone a bit too far in trying to
justify a potential mistake you've made. I feel it was a mistake to
seek out the assistance from, and legitimize the authority of, the
butchers of Pine Ridge.

And while I wouldn't
want this to be an irreconcilable point of contention between us, I
also recognize that you probably aren't confronted with much sincere
pointed criticism. My only hope is that you will respond calmly and
civilly. And know that even a text as benign as this one, which
calls for no specific action, is more than enough to thoroughly pad a
file. But this isn't my first trip to the rodeo and I choose not to
live in fear.

1 comment:

It behooves me to reiterate that, as with Jensen, I consider myself an above-ground radical (insomuch as editorial journalism and analysis is a qualifier in that regard). I assume surveillance, due to my writing and my past, and anymore I am very much disinclined to engage at all in any illegal direct actions. I've clarified these points in my security culture primer and other articles.

Also... I'd like to point that I don't have any personal ill-will towards DJ (or anyone else for that matter). This open letter to him was written because of what I (and others) perceive as intellectual inconsistencies on his part and his subsequent failure to acknowledge honest criticism. A truly radical discourse should not, and cannot, be dictated from an essentially unresponsive central authority or expert (no matter how respected they are by the bourgeois establishment -- and no matter if you are given 60 seconds to question them while they are on the stage). Further, as a radical writer becomes more prominently known, there is an increased risk that their message may become corrupted. This can occur even without the trappings of wealth and prestige. All of us need to question, from time to time, what we actually believe and where we actually stand.

It is my personal hope that Jensen will repudiate any statements he made which were potentially misused by Christopher Hedges in the latter's intellectually dishonest article about the black bloc tactic and the #occupy movement. Either way... Jensen's previous contributions will still stand as an inspiration to many of us -- but those writings and his forthcoming work may have to be examined in a different context.